The Turkish press is now debating both the implications and to a lesser extent authenticity of a memorandum leaked to Nokta magazine that purports to be a detailed assessment of the media outlets and specific journalists. Some are awarded accreditation to military briefings and some are not. The underlying principle of this controversy -- the issue at stake -- is the democratic assumption that an unbiased media and public discussions based on transparency is as important to the defense of the realm as are battalions and military hardware. Whether Turkey can invade the north of Iraq is one question, whether it should is another and whether public opinion is encouraging the powers that be to do the right thing or the wrong is a third. The world might be a very different place, to take another example, if The Washington Post had opposed the American overthrow of Saddam Hussein by military force before it had happened rather than after the fact and if Judith Miller of The New York Times and her editors had looked more critically at the sources of stories suggesting Baghdad possessed weapons of mass destruction.
It is only right that the press should question the criteria according to which the armed forces shares information. On the other hand, it is blinkered to the point of utter blindness to see only the military’s reputation as being on the line. If the leaked documents prove to be authentic, then they are far more damning of the press’s good character than of the military’s.
There are hundreds of television stations in this country and scores of newspapers. It is unreasonable to assume that the Turkish Armed Forces, like armed forces throughout the world, will show equal consideration to all. It would be surprising indeed if the military press office did not have a league table of friends and foes. They will, as a matter of course, expend more effort talking to news agencies and the more influential media and avoid organizations that systematically or willfully misrepresent what they have to say. The important thing is that these criteria not be a dark secret, that accreditation not be withdrawn because reporters report uncomfortable truths, and that the criteria have the approval of the press community itself.
If the military or the Prime Ministry or the Istanbul Municipality only talks to newspaper X or journalist Y, even though there are other equally influential newspapers or credible journalists, then the assumption must be that X or Y are collaborating and not to be trusted. Indeed, the reason this story of a journalistic “A” List has such resonance is because the Turkish press has in the recent past allowed itself to be manipulated, to be a medium of misinformation and to have distorted the words of individuals to make them victims of public hate campaigns. If some press organs and journalists wear the fact that they are not invited to press briefings as a badge of honor, then the implication is that those who do attend wear a badge of shame.
It is up to the press community to negotiate with official institutions clear and transparent criteria through which information is channeled. The Turkish Press Council has issued a statement in response to the Nokta story complaining that “for years” its remonstrations to install a transparent system of accreditation have been ignored and that a recent letter (Feb. 7, 2007 -- before the story broke) to the chief of general staff has gone unanswered. The reason, I suspect, the Press Council has been ignored is because the newspapers and organizations it represents have failed to show a common front or solidarity. While some newspapers volunteer to act as mouthpieces, why should official institutions feel the need to change their ways?
The current sensation of the leaked memorandum is a wake-up call to common sense. Unfortunately this won’t be the first time the Turkish press has slept through its own alarm.
